The death of famed director Robert Altman at age 81 is the loss of a true auteur of filmmaking whose prowess was undiminished right to the end.
A late bloomer who had done considerable television work in its golden era (his TV work was formidable in its own right-Combat, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Bonanza, Peter Gunn), Altman had minor success in feature films in the sixties until he transformed M*A*S*H into a critical and popular success which would launch him throughout the seventies as a visionary artist who told stories in a candid, realistic manner. Of course, his style has been emulated by newer directors like Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia) and Paul Haggis (Crash) who have adopted aspects of Altman’s storyline structure of often seemingly unrelated characters in a vast tapestry of contemporary America that gradually coalesce into a unifying theme. Witness the recent Babel, which bears a striking similarity to the Altman way.
If you wanted ‘precise to the page’ scripted dialogue, then you wouldn’t look to an Altman film. He was notorious for improvising scenes and lines, and his fierce independence and respect for actors attracted the biggest and best of stars. How else could he get Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts do what amounted to superb cameos in The Player! It was fun to watch him match different actors together just to see how they would respond. One minute there was Lily Tomlin paired with Keith Carradine in Nashville and both get Oscar nominations, and next there was Lindsay Lohan paired with Meryl Streep in A Prairie Home Companion.
I had the good fortune of meeting Altman while I was working with the student union film committee at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. He was featured to speak to the students at a showing of some of his films, and several of us had lunch at a nearby restaurant. Altman was always patient and informative in his responses to questions from the committee. What you saw on TV was what you got; he was just like that in real life. When asked what he thought of the hit television show M*A*S*H based on his movie, he wasn’t particularly fond of it since it sanitized and distorted the truth about what his film was trying to depict. When asked which of his films was his favorite, he answered that it was difficult to choose in the same way that his films were like his children, all special and beloved. I asked him what he had thought of Sam Peckinpah, another contemporary director, and his answer was “sick man…very sick….”, which was often an opinion shared by many. Altman’s individuality was evident when the waitress took our orders, and all of us went for the all-you-can-eat buffet. When it came time for Mr. Altman to order, he instead ordered a sandwich. Go figure.
A case could be made that as he got older, he became a better filmmaker. Sure, there were misfires like Popeye or the quirky Brewster McCloud, but you had to give him credit for being willing to take chances. Every few years or so, when you thought his career was foundering, he would return with The Player or Gosford Park and silence the critics and scholars. His is a body of work (Nashville, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, 3 Women, Short Cuts) that will be admired and imitated for a long time.
Vertigo
Vertigo
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
STRANGER THAN FICTION –Life as Narrative
Marc Forster is making a name for himself with such major films as Monsters Ball and Finding Neverland. In Stranger Than Fiction, he takes a plot that could have been suggested by Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and creates a world that suggests fantasy yet is grounded in what we call reality. It is an inventive plot made convincing by sensitive direction and fine performances by its stars, Will Ferrell and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
IRS civil servant Harold Crick (Ferrell) leads a regimented, mundane existence, which consists of an orderly routine guided by his punctual wristwatch. His solitary life becomes upset by the presence of a female voice that seems to be narrating his every move. His daily rituals are altered and, when he audits a baker, a free spirited activist named Ana Pascal (Gyllenhaal), he meets stiff resistance and hostility. Compelled to find the answers to the mysterious voice, he first consults the company shrink (Tom Hulce in a welcome, yet short performance), a therapist (Linda Hunt in too brief a role), and finally a literary professor, Dr. Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman in bravura support). It is with Dr. Hilbert that Harold finds hope and a methodology to solve the puzzle of the narrative voice.
At the same time, famed author, Kay Eiffel, is trying to finish her latest novel about a taxman who is hearing voices. When she struggles to find a suitable end for her character (all her principal characters are killed off in her books), a publisher’s assistant arrives in the name of Penny Escher (Queen Latifah wasted in a pedestrian part). Harold visits Ana for a followup audit and becomes smitten and attracted by her perky charm. As he audits her maze of disorganized tax documents, Ana begins to feel bad for the poor soul and gives him a sort of peace offering of homemade cookies, and thus their relationship grows. His visits with Dr. Hilbert begin to narrow the possible sources of his affliction until one day he stumbles on the answer and in doing so, he realizes that his life is predestined. His life out of kilter, Harold begins to break out of his quiet shell and experience life’s interesting aspects. Kay’s mental block soon gives way and when she finishes her novel and is ready to type the manuscript, Harold tracks her down using some creative ingenuity. She too has realized some incredible connection between her story and his real life. When Dr. Hilbert reads the final manuscript, his conclusions are a stunner to Harold. How Harold and Kay respond to this is what winds the film to a tense conclusion.
The dialogue is funny at times and always interesting. There are traces of other films like Groundhog Day, Field of Dreams or an episode of The X Files that will come to mind. The movie touches on the concepts of fate and destiny without being too obvious-perhaps it should have been more obvious come to think of it. Do we control our lives or are we part of some other plan or manuscript (like The Matrix)? The concept of ‘cause and effect’ and of randomness figures heavily in the overall theme of the film.
Harold is a sort of distant cousin to Forrest Gump complete with an innocent perspective on life. His character works because his persona changes throughout the film and when he faces his fears and desires head on, his life begins to move forward in ways he never imagined. He is starting to live life. And when he finds out his fate, he makes a big decision that brings his character full circle.
Harold’s watch becomes a kind of supporting character, as it serves as a catalyst for him and Ana to bond, but it is used too sparingly at times. There is a slight feeling that the filmmakers did not have enough confidence in the fantasy part to match the reality which is well done. Too bad, as the film steadily progresses in its story and etches some interesting characters. It also gets a bit confusing as to why a couple of characters pop in and out briefly, and you know it’s for some reason that becomes more evident by the climax.
The movie is at its best when Harold warms up to Ana, and the two begin a courtship that is affecting and genuine. In this, Gyllenhaal and Ferrell shine. Will Ferrell has always been a dependable comic from his Saturday Night Live years, but here, he successfully portrays a shy, passive man complete with blank expressions and awkward body language. Hoffman has his most significant role in years since his brief but memorable turn in Foster’s previous Finding Neverland. And Gyllenhaal proves adept as a romantic lead.
Forster is becoming a modern day teller of fables. In Stranger Than Fiction he spins a simple tale (written by Zach Helm) of love, life, and fate with a moral that is redemptive and refreshing. Not everyone will connect with this film; I suspect that the romantics out there will.
*** of **** stars
IRS civil servant Harold Crick (Ferrell) leads a regimented, mundane existence, which consists of an orderly routine guided by his punctual wristwatch. His solitary life becomes upset by the presence of a female voice that seems to be narrating his every move. His daily rituals are altered and, when he audits a baker, a free spirited activist named Ana Pascal (Gyllenhaal), he meets stiff resistance and hostility. Compelled to find the answers to the mysterious voice, he first consults the company shrink (Tom Hulce in a welcome, yet short performance), a therapist (Linda Hunt in too brief a role), and finally a literary professor, Dr. Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman in bravura support). It is with Dr. Hilbert that Harold finds hope and a methodology to solve the puzzle of the narrative voice.
At the same time, famed author, Kay Eiffel, is trying to finish her latest novel about a taxman who is hearing voices. When she struggles to find a suitable end for her character (all her principal characters are killed off in her books), a publisher’s assistant arrives in the name of Penny Escher (Queen Latifah wasted in a pedestrian part). Harold visits Ana for a followup audit and becomes smitten and attracted by her perky charm. As he audits her maze of disorganized tax documents, Ana begins to feel bad for the poor soul and gives him a sort of peace offering of homemade cookies, and thus their relationship grows. His visits with Dr. Hilbert begin to narrow the possible sources of his affliction until one day he stumbles on the answer and in doing so, he realizes that his life is predestined. His life out of kilter, Harold begins to break out of his quiet shell and experience life’s interesting aspects. Kay’s mental block soon gives way and when she finishes her novel and is ready to type the manuscript, Harold tracks her down using some creative ingenuity. She too has realized some incredible connection between her story and his real life. When Dr. Hilbert reads the final manuscript, his conclusions are a stunner to Harold. How Harold and Kay respond to this is what winds the film to a tense conclusion.
The dialogue is funny at times and always interesting. There are traces of other films like Groundhog Day, Field of Dreams or an episode of The X Files that will come to mind. The movie touches on the concepts of fate and destiny without being too obvious-perhaps it should have been more obvious come to think of it. Do we control our lives or are we part of some other plan or manuscript (like The Matrix)? The concept of ‘cause and effect’ and of randomness figures heavily in the overall theme of the film.
Harold is a sort of distant cousin to Forrest Gump complete with an innocent perspective on life. His character works because his persona changes throughout the film and when he faces his fears and desires head on, his life begins to move forward in ways he never imagined. He is starting to live life. And when he finds out his fate, he makes a big decision that brings his character full circle.
Harold’s watch becomes a kind of supporting character, as it serves as a catalyst for him and Ana to bond, but it is used too sparingly at times. There is a slight feeling that the filmmakers did not have enough confidence in the fantasy part to match the reality which is well done. Too bad, as the film steadily progresses in its story and etches some interesting characters. It also gets a bit confusing as to why a couple of characters pop in and out briefly, and you know it’s for some reason that becomes more evident by the climax.
The movie is at its best when Harold warms up to Ana, and the two begin a courtship that is affecting and genuine. In this, Gyllenhaal and Ferrell shine. Will Ferrell has always been a dependable comic from his Saturday Night Live years, but here, he successfully portrays a shy, passive man complete with blank expressions and awkward body language. Hoffman has his most significant role in years since his brief but memorable turn in Foster’s previous Finding Neverland. And Gyllenhaal proves adept as a romantic lead.
Forster is becoming a modern day teller of fables. In Stranger Than Fiction he spins a simple tale (written by Zach Helm) of love, life, and fate with a moral that is redemptive and refreshing. Not everyone will connect with this film; I suspect that the romantics out there will.
*** of **** stars
Friday, November 03, 2006
BABEL’s Microcosm of the World
With a plot structure not unlike his previous Amores Perros or 21 Grams, director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and writer Guillermo Arriaga have created Babel, the final act of a trilogy about the human condition. With seemingly unrelated characters and storylines that gradually merge, it is as ambitious as a narrative can get, and the filmmakers pull it off with great aplomb.
Four parallel stories take place within days if not hours of each other. In Morocco, the father of a goat herding family buys a rifle from a neighbor. Set to guard the flock from predators, his two sons decide to do some target practice. As a tour bus happens by, a single shot rings out, and a careless act will create havoc and distress for innocent victims and have severe repercussions for others.
In the bus, an American couple, Richard (Brad Pitt) and Susan (Cate Blanchett), are having a marital crisis when all of a sudden their world is turned upside down. The tour bus stops at a remote village as the passengers begin to stir and fear for their own safety. As the Moroccan police investigate the incident, Richard is desperate to save the life of his wife amid primitive surroundings in a foreign land.
The couple’s two children in California are under the care of their nanny, Amelia (Adriana Barraza), who is anxious to go to her son’s impending wedding. After failing to find suitable caregivers to watch over the children, she takes them with her to Mexico. Escorted by her volatile nephew Santiago (Gael Garcia Bernal), they drive to a festive wedding ceremony and reception. Afterwards, they are stopped at a border checkpoint where events turn nightmarish.
In Japan, a lonely teenaged girl, Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi) who is deaf, hangs with her other deaf friends and dreams of flirting and connecting with a male even if it means compromising her dignity. Her father, Yasujiro (Koji Yakusho) is inadequate as a parent since his wife died under obscure circumstances. As detectives want to question Yasujiro, Cheiko is smitten by a younger detective and unleashes a torrent of passion and secrets.
The final moments of the film are memorable as each storyline becomes clearer and potent in their revelations and truths. Time slips back and forth and certain events catch up to the others (Christopher Nolan’s Momento comes to mind). The threads that connect the different stories are not as obvious as one might expect and when they do become apparent, they hold emotional meaning. What is so remarkable is how a seemingly innocent prank sets off a chain reaction of angst and responsibility.
The film does not sermonize but rather it presents the events as they happen albeit in an incongruent time frame. You experience life and its effects on other events and people. The director and writer try to depict people like you or me with the same needs or longings. With a setting that reaches the far-flung corners (Japan, Mexico or Morocco) of the world, Inarritu has forced his audience to go with him and face a myriad of characters that speak English, Japanese, Spanish, Arabic, Berber, or French! Yet when we get to know these disparate individuals and their situations, we begin to empathize and care for them despite their faults or shortcomings. Although the title has biblical references with its different languages, these stories share common emotional bonds that transcend mere dialects. This is a film that could easily play anywhere in the world and still be affecting.
The international cast melds amateurs with seasoned veterans and the honest performances are completely captivating and affecting. I dare anyone to pick out the professional actors from the non professionals (save Pitt and Blanchett). This use of unknowns adds to the believability of the whole storyline. (It is ironic that Michael Pena plays a border policeman; he was featured in last year’s similarly structured Crash-a coincidence perhaps?)
There are painful, agonizing moments where human suffering is brought with unflinching, explicit realism to an almost unbearable level. This film presents characters with all their strengths and weaknesses and it does so unsparingly. Sometimes the punishment or consequences unfairly outweigh the crime or the mistake. The brothers who watch over their father’s goats must face their own culpability and ugly family secrets that threaten to destroy their way of life. There are Richard and Susan who are at the center or eye of a growing hurricane of life’s cruel randomness and must depend on strangers for survival. A jaunt across a Mexican border turns ugly.
Things are not wrapped up nicely, and several plot threads are left hanging and open-ended on purpose. The marital problems of Richard and Susan are never clearly delineated and their relationship gets short shrift even as they go through a harrowing event. The music is somber and spare. The imagery is powerful despite the handheld documentary feel. The scenes of Japanese nightlife are vivid and disturbing in their portrayal of urban youth.
Babel is about how families are torn apart and come together. It is also about children. It could be your children or mine or the world’s children. There are some significant issues (racial tension, illegal immigrants, adolescent yearnings, perceptions of a foreign country, and the arrogance of the ‘ugly American’) the filmmakers touch upon and you wish they had gone even farther with the material, but you are glad they went as far as they did. Babel is a film that this reviewer has no desire to sit through again, but having gone through it once, it is a unique, remarkable experience. This is an imperfect, significant film and destined for major Oscar nominations.
*** ½ out of **** stars
Four parallel stories take place within days if not hours of each other. In Morocco, the father of a goat herding family buys a rifle from a neighbor. Set to guard the flock from predators, his two sons decide to do some target practice. As a tour bus happens by, a single shot rings out, and a careless act will create havoc and distress for innocent victims and have severe repercussions for others.
In the bus, an American couple, Richard (Brad Pitt) and Susan (Cate Blanchett), are having a marital crisis when all of a sudden their world is turned upside down. The tour bus stops at a remote village as the passengers begin to stir and fear for their own safety. As the Moroccan police investigate the incident, Richard is desperate to save the life of his wife amid primitive surroundings in a foreign land.
The couple’s two children in California are under the care of their nanny, Amelia (Adriana Barraza), who is anxious to go to her son’s impending wedding. After failing to find suitable caregivers to watch over the children, she takes them with her to Mexico. Escorted by her volatile nephew Santiago (Gael Garcia Bernal), they drive to a festive wedding ceremony and reception. Afterwards, they are stopped at a border checkpoint where events turn nightmarish.
In Japan, a lonely teenaged girl, Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi) who is deaf, hangs with her other deaf friends and dreams of flirting and connecting with a male even if it means compromising her dignity. Her father, Yasujiro (Koji Yakusho) is inadequate as a parent since his wife died under obscure circumstances. As detectives want to question Yasujiro, Cheiko is smitten by a younger detective and unleashes a torrent of passion and secrets.
The final moments of the film are memorable as each storyline becomes clearer and potent in their revelations and truths. Time slips back and forth and certain events catch up to the others (Christopher Nolan’s Momento comes to mind). The threads that connect the different stories are not as obvious as one might expect and when they do become apparent, they hold emotional meaning. What is so remarkable is how a seemingly innocent prank sets off a chain reaction of angst and responsibility.
The film does not sermonize but rather it presents the events as they happen albeit in an incongruent time frame. You experience life and its effects on other events and people. The director and writer try to depict people like you or me with the same needs or longings. With a setting that reaches the far-flung corners (Japan, Mexico or Morocco) of the world, Inarritu has forced his audience to go with him and face a myriad of characters that speak English, Japanese, Spanish, Arabic, Berber, or French! Yet when we get to know these disparate individuals and their situations, we begin to empathize and care for them despite their faults or shortcomings. Although the title has biblical references with its different languages, these stories share common emotional bonds that transcend mere dialects. This is a film that could easily play anywhere in the world and still be affecting.
The international cast melds amateurs with seasoned veterans and the honest performances are completely captivating and affecting. I dare anyone to pick out the professional actors from the non professionals (save Pitt and Blanchett). This use of unknowns adds to the believability of the whole storyline. (It is ironic that Michael Pena plays a border policeman; he was featured in last year’s similarly structured Crash-a coincidence perhaps?)
There are painful, agonizing moments where human suffering is brought with unflinching, explicit realism to an almost unbearable level. This film presents characters with all their strengths and weaknesses and it does so unsparingly. Sometimes the punishment or consequences unfairly outweigh the crime or the mistake. The brothers who watch over their father’s goats must face their own culpability and ugly family secrets that threaten to destroy their way of life. There are Richard and Susan who are at the center or eye of a growing hurricane of life’s cruel randomness and must depend on strangers for survival. A jaunt across a Mexican border turns ugly.
Things are not wrapped up nicely, and several plot threads are left hanging and open-ended on purpose. The marital problems of Richard and Susan are never clearly delineated and their relationship gets short shrift even as they go through a harrowing event. The music is somber and spare. The imagery is powerful despite the handheld documentary feel. The scenes of Japanese nightlife are vivid and disturbing in their portrayal of urban youth.
Babel is about how families are torn apart and come together. It is also about children. It could be your children or mine or the world’s children. There are some significant issues (racial tension, illegal immigrants, adolescent yearnings, perceptions of a foreign country, and the arrogance of the ‘ugly American’) the filmmakers touch upon and you wish they had gone even farther with the material, but you are glad they went as far as they did. Babel is a film that this reviewer has no desire to sit through again, but having gone through it once, it is a unique, remarkable experience. This is an imperfect, significant film and destined for major Oscar nominations.
*** ½ out of **** stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)